Sanjay Misra, J.
1. Heard Sri V.K. Nagaich, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant appellant, the State of U.P., through District Magistrate, Meerut and Sri P. K. Jain, learned senior counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent.
2. This is an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay of one year and 174 days in filing this second appeal. This application is supported with an affidavit. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.
3. According to the averments made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant, it has been stated that the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2005/10.11.2005, passed by the first appellate court was obtained by the appellant on 28.11.2005 and on 3.12.2005, the District Government Counsel alongwith his opinion sent the same to the authority. On 27.12.2005, the departmental official sent a letter to the Conservator of Forest for obtaining necessary permission from the State Government for filing the second appeal. The Conservator of Forest, Meerut sent a letter dated 28.12.2005 to the State Government for permission to file second appeal and by a letter dated 16.1.2006 the Principal Chief Secretary, State of U.P., was requested to give permission to file the appeal and sanction an amount of Rs. 40,000 for payment of court-fee and other necessary expenses. Reminders were sent on 23.1.2006, 1.2.2006, 17.2.2006, 21.2.2006 and 29.3.2006 to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest U.P., and to the State Government for the said purpose. In paragraph 13 of the affidavit, it has been stated that the State Government granted permission vide letter dated 6.6.2006 for filing the appeal, which was received in the office of the forest department on 20.6.2006. On 29.6.2006 the Conservator of Forest, Meerut wrote to the Principal Chief Secretary, State of U.P., for sanction of Rs. 40,000 for payment of court-fee and miscellaneous expenses. On 1.7.2006 the officials of the department were deputed to approach the office of the State Counsel, High Court, Allahabad and such official approached the Chief Standing Counsel, High Court Allahabad on 3.7.2006 and was informed to bring the necessary court-fee and miscellaneous expenses for filing the appeal. It is stated in the affidavit that on 18.7.2006, 24.8.2006. 18.9.2006, 27.9.2006 and 17.11.2006, the Principal Chief Secretary State of U.P., was repeatedly asked to sanction the amount of Rs. 40,000 for court-fee and other expenses for filing the second appeal. A letter dated 10.1.2007 was received from the Deputy Secretary, State of U.P., by the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P., Lucknow to meet the necessary expenses from the account of the Forest Department and file the appeal. The said letter is alleged to have been received by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, who sent a letter dated 16.1.2007 to the Principal Chief Secretary State of U.P., for granting financial sanction of Rs. 40,000 at the earliest. On 7.2.2007 the Deputy Secretary, State of U.P., required some queries and clarifications from the department and again wrote to the department on 8.2.2007 to meet the expenses from the funds of the Forest Department and file the appeal. It has been stated in paragraph 25 of the affidavit that on 23.2.2007 the Divisional Director, Social Forestry Division, Meerut requested the Finance Controller in the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P., Lucknow to grant the financial sanction. The Conservator of Forest, Meerut sent a similar request to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P., on 2.3.2007. In paragraph 28, it is stated that on 12.3.2007 the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P., again wrote to the Principal Chief Secretary, State of U.P., for sanction of the amount and inter departmental reminders were sent. On 23.4.2007, the Finance Controller in the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P., Lucknow granted sanction of Rs. 40,000 for payment of court-fee and miscellaneous expenses for filing the second appeal. The said letter was sent to the Treasury Meerut and a Bank Draft in the name of the Chief Standing Counsel High Court, Allahabad of Rs. 30,000 was prepared on 13.5.2007. In paragraph 34 it has been stated that after receipt of the Bank draft dated 13.5.2007 the official came to Allahabad on 15.5.2007 for filing this second appeal but was sent back by the State Counsel to get the necessary documents. It has been stated that after arranging the required documents and papers the official approached the State Counsel at Allahabad on 6.7.2007 whereafter the appeal was drafted and filed on 17.7.2007.
4. Sri P. K. Jain, learned senior counsel for the respondents has opposed the condonation of delay application on the ground that inter departmental correspondence of the appellant is not a sufficient reason to record that the delay is to be condoned. According to him the second appeal could have been filed even without the necessary court-fee and the deficiency in court-fee could have been made good by the appellant at subsequent dates for which the reasons for delay in making good the deficiency could be explained by them. According to him non-filing of the appeal even after sanction was granted by the State Government on 6.6.2006 is not sufficiently explained in the affidavit since the appeal was filed more than 1 year after the State Government had granted the permission. He has argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in the case of Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India and Ors. 1994 (23) ALR 574, has clearly held that the parties should pursue their rights and remedies promptly and not sleep over their rights, which is the whole policy behind the Limitation Act and other rules of Limitation. According to him after 6.6.2006, the appellant has slept over his rights to file the second appeal and the explanation that they were waiting for financial sanction is contradictory because the Deputy Secretary of the State Government had clearly written on 10.1.2007 to the department to arrange the fund from its own department and file the appeal. He states that when the funds were to be arranged by the department itself, there was no reason for such an extra-ordinary delay in filing the appeal. He has also placed reliance upon the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and Anr. v. Ist Addl. District Judge, Moradabad and Ors. 1995 (26) ALR 585, to state that all litigants including the State should be accorded the same treatment while considering an application for condonation of delay and the fact that State was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant. It was held that the doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. The learned Judge further recorded that there is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the 'State' is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. On the aforesaid law cited, learned Counsel for the respondent states that the condonation of delay application made by the State appellant cannot be allowed since there is no satisfactory or even reasonable explanation for condoning the delay in filing the second appeal.
5. Learned standing counsel has referred a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors. : 2002(143)ELT249(SC) , and has referred paragraph 10, which is quoted below:
10. It is notorious and common knowledge that delay in more than 60 per cent of the cases filed in this Court-be it by private party or the State-are barred by limitation and this Court generally adopts liberal approach in condonation of delay finding somewhat sufficient cause to decide the appeal on merits. It is equally common knowledge that litigants including the State are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making file pushing, and passing on the buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officer/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay-intentional or otherwise-is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression 'sufficient cause' should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Governmental conditions would be cognizant to and require adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The Court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the Courts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants. Considered from the perspective, it must be held that the delay of 109 days in this case has been explained and that it is a fit case for condonation of delay.
6. From the aforesaid submissions and the averments made in the respective affidavit as also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it appears that the sufficient cause for condonation of delay shown by the State, which is the appellant is to be considered in view of the fact that the Government is an impersonal machinery and decisions are taken at a slow pace and certain amount of latitude is not impermissible while considering the condonation of delay application made by the State. In so far as sufficient cause is concerned the same requires to be adjudged from the averments made by the applicant.
7. The averments made in the affidavit supporting the condonation of delay application clearly indicates that on 6.6.2006, the State Government had granted permission for filing the appeal to the department. On 10.1.2007, the Deputy Secretary, State of U.P., directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P., Lucknow to meet the necessary expenses of the amount of Rs. 40,000 from the account of the Forest Department according to relevant rules and take necessary action for filing the appeal. It is these two dates that are relevant for the purpose of consideration of the submission made on behalf of the respondent. Up to 6.6.2006 it appears that there was no permission by the State Government to file the appeal and therefore, by applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Government is an impersonal machinery and decisions are taken at a slow pace certain amount of latitude is not impermissible therefore, the delay with respect to grant of sanction caused from 3.12.2005 up to 6.6.2006 is to be considered liberally and the averments made in paragraphs 4 to 12 of the affidavits supporting the condonation of delay application appears to be such that delay up to 6.6.2006 requires to be condoned not by accepting the reasons given in the aforesaid paragraphs but in public interest.
8. The delay in filing the appeal after 6.6.2006 is explained only on the ground of non-availability of finance for payment of court-fee and other expenses. Here it will be seen that although there were several communications made by the forest department and the State Government the State Government was of the view that forest department should meet the necessary amount of Rs. 40,000 from the account of the forest department and this view of the State Government was communicated to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P., Lucknow vide the letter dated 10.1.2007. It is after 10.1.2007 that the forest department itself has taken nearly six months to actually file the appeal when the Finance Controller in the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P. granted financial sanction on 23.4.2007.
9. There is a difference between negligence and red-tapism in Government working where red tapism is now an established and embedded culture of Government working. Any number of rejection of insufficient causes shown by the State for condoning the delay would in the opinion of this Court not help, in any manner, in compelling the State officials to shed their red tape work culture. A person who is really asleep can be woken up but a person who is pretending sleep cannot be woken up since any effort that is made will produce no effect upon him if he is merely pretending sleep. The bureaucracy of the State is well staffed. They have all facilities for efficient working, but yet the way of working is usually slow paced for no apparent reason. Being an impersonal machinery its officials are really not interested in keeping time, so what if there is a statute on limitation. The provisions of the Indian Limitation Act and Rules of Limitation, for them appears to consist of only Section 5, because it is under this section that they explain and bask in the glory of their work culture known as red-tapism. Keeping files on their desks, tables and adopting a work methodology that is the best way to delay progress of important Court files is explained in reasons given for sufficient cause as if they are working efficiently. If the observation is true that most of the filing in Courts by the State, in actions or appeals is beyond the time allowed by Courts or in statute, then the State should identify its officials who are inefficient in dealing with Court cases. It is then that the State can overcome its bureaucratic red-tapism. As has been rightly observed by the father of the nation, who died 61 years ago this day 'the useful and the useless must, like good and evil generally, go on together, and man must make his choice'. (Mahatma Gandhi)
10. Under such circumstances, this Court has to consider whether there is any negligence on behalf of the official of the State in filing the appeal within time and not giving sufficient explanation or reasons for condoning the delay then whether the application should be rejected which would ultimately affect the State and not any individual. After grant of permission on 6.6.2006 to file the appeal the State took another six months to form its view on 10.1.2007 that the Department should arrange for court-fee and expenses from its own funds. Again the explanation for delay from 6.6.2006 to 10.1.2007 is of writing letters and reminders. A decision was taken on 10.1.2007 but after six months of file pushing and avoidance. Therefore, broadly the scenario is that it took six months for the State to make up its mind to challenge a money decree of the first appellate court and another six months to form an opinion that the concerned department should arrange for funds. Thereafter, it took another six months for the department to arrange the funds and file the appeal. Clearly the State was not prompt in pursuing its rights and was actually sleeping over them.
11. In view of the reasons shown it will be seen from the affidavit supporting the condonation of delay application that on 10.1.2007 the State required the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest U.P., to arrange the necessary amount of Rs. 40,000 from the account of the forest department. Whether such amount was withdrawn by the concerned official of the forest department with expediency or there was negligence on their behalf since the appeal was filed after six months of such direction by the State. From the affidavit it appears that the Divisional Director Social Forestry Division, Meerut wrote to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P., Lucknow and the Finance Controller in his office which was ultimately sanctioned on 23.4.2007. It was after the sanction that the officials proceeded to file the appeal ultimately on 17.7.2007. Here also it took a period of nearly 3 months for the official to file the appeal although during the month of June, 2007 the Courts were closed for summer vacation. Even when Courts opened on 2.7.2007 the appeal was not filed immediately but its preparation started on 6.7.2007 and therefore, it is quite clear that there has been negligence on behalf of the official or officials of the Department in filing this second appeal.
12. In these circumstances, since the Court has to take a liberal view for the delay due to red tapism in the Government working and has in view of public interest considered it to be in the interest of justice to condone the delay, the negligence committed on behalf of officials cannot be ignored. Particularly when if the appeal brought by the State is dismissed on the ground of delay alone no official is individually affected by ultimately it is a public interest which could suffer. Therefore, while condoning the delay of one year and 174 days in filing this appeal it would be appropriate that the State Government should take remedial action against the official or officials concerned by identifying such official or officials and recover from him/them the cost, which is being imposed by this Court as a condition for allowing the application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. Such details of recovery be brought on record by the appellant.
13. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and considering the nature of the dispute between the parties and that the State of U.P., is the appellant, this Court finds it is appropriate to impose cost of Rs. 10,000 which should be deposited by the State before the Registrar General of this Court within two months. Only upon deposit of the amount within the said period this appeal would be listed under Order XLI, Rule 11 of C.P.C. and the amount so deposited may be given to the U.P. Legal Aid Services Authority. Office is directed to give a regular number to this appeal upon deposit of the said amount of cost.
This application stands allowed accordingly.